Exodus 22:8

Exo 22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.

Ver. 8. To see whether,] sc., By putting him to his oath. {Exo 22:11} Some think that a private oath may be in such a case as this lawfully taken for the satisfaction of another, if he will not otherwise be satisfied.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hebrew, gods.

That is, whether he hath stolen.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 8. Unto the judges] See Clarke on Ex 21:6.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(8) To see whether he have put his hand.—Kalisch translates, to swear that he has not put his hand, and so the LXX. (καὶ δμεῖται) and Vulg. (et jurabit quod non extenderit manum).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8. unto God] i.e. to the local sanctuary. On the term ‘God,’ here and v. 9, and the paraphrase ‘the judges’ (marg.), see on Exo_21:6 and Exo_18:15. To judge by the analogy of v. 11, a denial on oath was sufficient for an acquittal. Comp. 1Ki_8:31-32.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If the thief be not found,.... And so no account can be given of the goods deposited, what is become of them, and it becomes a doubtful case whether they have been stolen or embezzled, and there is suspicion of the latter:

then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges: here called Elohim, gods, because they were God's vicegerents, and represented him, and acted under his power and authority; and who at this present were Moses, and those that judged the people under him, and afterwards the seventy elders, and all such who in succeeding times were judges in Israel, and bore the office of civil magistrates; before these the master of the house, or the person who had any goods committed to his care, and they were lost, was to be brought and put to his oath, and upon it examined, in order to find out what was become of the goods committed to him: to see whether he has put his hand to his neighbour's goods: took them to himself, made use of them, or disposed of them to his own advantage, and which was no other than a kind of theft.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

It would appear that if the master of the house would clear himself of imputation, the loss of the pledged article fell upon its owner.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Gods. "In the presence of the Lord," Septuagint.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

That they may examine all circumstances, and use all means to find out the truth, by offering him his oath, or otherwise.

Unto his neighbour’s goods; either to take and reserve them for his own use, or to dispose of them to another for his own advantage.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

8. Whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods — The magistrates would carefully examine if there were any evidence of fraudulent appropriation of the goods, and if none were found, such an oath as is mentioned in Exo_22:11 would be taken as a release for the suspected party. The loss in that case would fall upon the owner.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If the thief be not found. It is not clear what was to be done in this case. Kalisch supposes that it came under the law of the oath (ver. 10), and that if the man entrusted with the deposit swore that he had not embezzled it, he was let go free. But as stolen cattle were to be compensated for to the owner (ver. 12), it would seem to be more consistent that stolen money or chattels should also have been made good.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

על כל דבר פשע FOR ALL MANNER OF TRESSPASS in which he (the bailee) is proved a liar in respect of his oath (i. e. is convicted of perjury), because witnesses testify that he himself has stolen it and the judges condemn him on the evidence of the witnesses,

ישלם שנים לרעהו HE SHALL PAY THE DOUBLE TO HIS FELLOW-MAN — Scripture teaches you that in a case of a bailment where one pleads that it has been stolen from him and it is proved that he himself has stolen it he is liable to pay “kefel” (twice the value of the article) to the owner. When, however, does this law hold good? In the case that he has taken an oath that it has been stolen from him and witnesses afterwards appear and testify to the contrary. For our Rabbis expound this phrase as follows: (Bava Kamma 63b) “and the owner of the house shall approach unto the judges” — this “approaching the judges” is an expression signifying the taking of an oath. You say that it means approaching the judges in order to take an oath, but perhaps this is not so, and it means that he approaches them to put his case, and that the meaning of the verse is. that as soon as the bailee appears before the court and denies any liability, saying, “it has been stolen” from me, he at once becomes liable to pay double if witnessess appear who testify that the bailment is still in his possession? You certainly cannot argue thus! For “conversion” (שליחות יד) is mentioned here and later on (v. 10) it is mentioned again: “Then shall the oath of the Lord be between the two of them, if he hath not put his hand (אם לא שלח ידו) unto his fellow-man’s goods”. — Now, what is the meaning of the phrase in the latter case? It is evident from what precedes it that it is a matter of taking an oath! So also here it is a matter of taking an oath. (Bava Kamma 63b).

אשר יאמר כי הוא זה means, according to the literal sense, any article about which the witness will say: “this is the very article” about which you have taken an oath that it has been stolen from you; see, it is actually in your possession! — then the matter of dispute between the two of them shall come before the judges. These shall examine the witnesses, and if they prove to be trustworthy and they (the judges) condemn this bailee, then he has to pay double. If, however, they condemn the witnesses because these are found to be “plotting” witnesses (זוממין) then shall they (the witnesses) pay double to the bailee. Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, however, explained that כי הוא זה tells us that no oath can be imposed upon him (the defendant) except if he admits a part of the other’s claim asserting, “So-and-so much I owe you, and the rest has been stolen from me” (according to this explanation the phrase כי הוא זה is not a statement of the witnesses but that of the bailee himself; i. e. he says, כי הוא זה, “it is this only” that you have to claim and not as much as you say) (Bava Kamma 107b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

WHEREOF ONE SAITH: ‘THIS IS IT.’ Rashi comments: “according to the literal sense it means: that which the witness will say ‘this is it — this is that article about which you have taken an oath [that it was stolen from you] but see, it is in your possession!’ And our Rabbis have explained that the phrase this is it teaches us that an oath cannot be imposed [by the court on a defendant] unless he admits part of the claim, saying ‘I owe you so and so much, but the rest was stolen from me.’” But this principle of partial admission which the Rabbi [Rashi] has written here, is in accordance with the opinion of certain individual Rabbis [in the Talmud], but is not the accepted decision of the law, for guardians [to incur liability to an oath] need not partially deny and partially admit the claim, but even if they claim that the whole article was stolen, they still have to take the oath of the guardians, [unlike debts, which, if the debtor denies completely, do not require an oath of the Torah]. Moreover, it has been explained in the Gemara with convincing proofs, that when he denies the very fact that he ever became a guardian, such as where he says “you have never given me the object to keep,” in that case if he denied it totally, he is free from taking an oath, and if he admitted it partially he is obliged to take an oath, this being the opinion of all Rabbis in the Talmud, even though the Rabbi [Rashi] has not written so in his commentaries to the Gemara. If so, we may say that the phrase [this is it — from which we derive the principle of partial admission, as explained above], speaks according to the interpretation of the Sages of a case where the guardian’s defense is: “He never gave me anything to keep,” in which case if he denied it totally he is free of an oath, and if he partially admitted it and partially denied it, he is liable to take an oath. Thus the verses are to be explained as follows: If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto the judges — for every claim of trespass which he may claim against him, such as: “You were negligent in your guarding it,” or where the guardian says: “this is it, — this is what you have deposited with me, and you did not deposit any more with me” — then the one with whom the article was deposited that the judges will condemn, [upon testimony given before them that he embezzled it], shall pay double unto his neighbor. Thus, both [the debtor and the guardian] pay, but double restitution is only where the guardian claims falsely that it was stolen, and the rule concerning the plea of partial admission applies to all claims, even to loans, robbery and other matters. In all these laws the verses of Scripture are few and the rules many. But there is no need to explain them here, except in order to interpret the verses.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.